Conquer Club

Just wondering if anyone knows how to get to the answer 560 using this question...

3 individuals form a partnership and agree to divide the profits equally. X invests 9000, y invests 7000, and Z invests 4000. If the profits are 4800, how much less would X receive then, if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

Like it says in the title: This question has been bugging the hell out of me, and any help would be absolutly awesome. Thanks...

4800/20=240

So for each 1000 dollars invested, you get 240 dollars worth of the profits.

So X gets 9*240=2160

Y gets 7*240=1680

Z gets 4*240=960

2160+1680+960=4800

I don't see a way to get 560 out of that.

I guess I was misinformed...Thanks alot. You're the best, but how did you get 20 again...

Anarkistsdream wrote:I don't see a way to get 560 out of that.

It says that x would get less. That must mean that you get LESS money if you invested more.

hecter wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:I don't see a way to get 560 out of that.

It says that x would get less. That must mean that you get LESS money if you invested more.

That makes no sense though....

Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

EDIT: The share Anarkists worked out being in proportion to the size of the original investment.

Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

catseyeagate wrote:I guess I was misinformed...Thanks alot. You're the best, but how did you get 20 again...

9,000+7000+4000=20,000

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

I think it's the way it was worded. It's probably meant to say:

If the profits are 4800, how much less would X receive if the money was divided out equally than if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

They are split evenly:

3 individuals form a partnership and agree to divide the profits equally.

The question is, what if X got a clue, and shared them in proportion to his investment? How much less is he currently getting?

£560.

hecter wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

I think it's the way it was worded. It's probably meant to say:

If the profits are 4800, how much less would X receive if the money was divided out equally than if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

The question is worded correctly. Go back and read it.

hecter wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

I think it's the way it was worded. It's probably meant to say:

If the profits are 4800, how much less would X receive if the money was divided out equally than if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

That's it, Hecter... I didn't see the top part...

You and Stopper actually figured out the REAL problem... I just did the math after reading the last line...



Good job Stopper and Hecter!

Stopper wrote:The question is worded correctly. Go back and read it.

Ya, I just read your post, and you're right. It's just a bit confusing for my mind which is in summer vacation mode. Actually, I just got my report card and my lowest mark was in math.

By the way, that is why I majored in English and Journalism and not math...

Anarkistsdream wrote:By the way, that is why I majored in English and Journalism and not math...

I wouldn't worry about it. You did the proportions calculation. Judging from the newspapers I read every day, your average journalist would have difficulty counting his toes.

$560 is correct. Tell X to wisen up!

BTW Ank, I found your approach to it odd, and more confusing, which I would expect from a non-math type. And I don't mean that as an insult, just funny how different-minded people approach the problem differently.

hmmm...but his approach was exactly how i would have done it...and my best classes are math and science...

I could be talking out of my arse here, but would Anarkists' method be favoured by someone who attempted to do the sums in their head?

Backward as that may seem.

EDIT: I mean the idea of mental arithmetic is backward, not Anarkists...

Easier way, figure out % each initially invested, apply that % to profits. The dollars/$1000 invested won't work in all cases (what if they weren't even dollar amounts? or the amounts invested changed over time?) and is more confusing IMO.... and I have to explain numbers to non-math types all day long. Both ways arrived at the same answer in this problem however, so no worries.

Stopper wrote:I could be talking out of my arse here, but would Anarkists' method be favoured by someone who attempted to do the sums in their head?

Backward as that may seem.

EDIT: I mean the idea of mental arithmetic is backward, not Anarkists...

*wipes away tears*

You think I'm stupid don't you???

WAHHHHHHH!

I have nothing to contribute to this thread.

MM, stop spamming then.

wicked wrote:MM, stop spamming then.

So my post was spamming but the post above mine wasn't?

Posting just to say you have nothing to say is a perfect example of spam. Ank was involved in the conversation about his math abilities.